Latest Breaking News

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)

62. Wow, haven't seen a victim-blaming statement that straightforward here in awhile. (nt)

Reply to ColesCountyDem (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 29, 2014, 10:31 PM

Dec 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

128 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Quinn signs 'revenge porn' ban into law [View all] inanna Dec 2014 OP

I suspect the IL Supreme Court will strike it down, after staying enforcement immediately. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #1

I sincerely hope so BadGimp Dec 2014 #4

So do I. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #5

this has nothing to do with thought police. seabeyond Dec 2014 #13

It's stifling the right of free speech. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #24

Why is "revenge porn" free speech? chervilant Dec 2014 #53

If these were photos or videos being taken illegally cstanleytech Dec 2014 #54

If "these were photos or videos" "obtained legally and with consent," chervilant Dec 2014 #59

Because people are posting them to humiliate an ex thus the revenge portion but cstanleytech Dec 2014 #64

Well, durn, stanley... chervilant Dec 2014 #67

I never said they had intent for them to be posted online. cstanleytech Dec 2014 #69

Apparently, chervilant Dec 2014 #91

Assuming it doesnt get tossed out by the courts which could happen, we are just going to have to cstanleytech Dec 2014 #92

Does it not occur to you that the legislation chervilant Dec 2014 #94

All of that is irrelevant to what the court decides about the law chervilant. cstanleytech Dec 2014 #95

Yes, and don't we have such a lovely bunch sitting on the benches these days.... n/t chervilant Dec 2014 #96

If you mean SCOTUS nope. Best hope it has is in the lower courts and that they throw it out and cstanleytech Dec 2014 #97

If people must do this treestar Jan 2015 #109

Actually actors do let their images be used but you just have to pay them cstanleytech Jan 2015 #113

But if you don't pay, you can't use them treestar Jan 2015 #123

And if the images and video under discussion were ones that were taken without consent I cstanleytech Jan 2015 #124

Consent to use publicly treestar Jan 2015 #125

Ya but in general you cant grandfather in such a thing for older content. cstanleytech Jan 2015 #126

Because omg the menz are being oppressed!11!, pretty much. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #57

yup. nt seabeyond Dec 2014 #60

That's rather what I thought when I read some of the chervilant Dec 2014 #61

It's telling what people start pulling the "it is my sacred right to do this thing" card, isn't it? Posteritatis Dec 2014 #66

Oh I agree these videos can destroy lives but also people need to really think things through cstanleytech Dec 2014 #71

What people need to do is not distribute them maliciously, full stop. Posteritatis Dec 2014 #76

Except I can imagine some people using it to setup their ex. cstanleytech Dec 2014 #78

Oh, for - ... yeah, I can see this will be pointless. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #79

Yes I agree. nt cstanleytech Dec 2014 #81

Because, it's NEVER a malicious, jilted guy choosing chervilant Dec 2014 #93

that is so ridiculous I have to post. Your idiotic scenario is easily -EASILY- avoided by just not KittyWampus Jan 2015 #115

I agree it "should" remain private but just because it should doesnt mean it will so everyone cstanleytech Jan 2015 #122

False equivalencies do not help your argument. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #82

You just keep telling yourself that... chervilant Dec 2014 #90

And you keewp believing whatever helps you get through the night, too... ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #98

It has everything to do with hate crimes as the law recognizes INTENT as part of the equation KittyWampus Jan 2015 #116

They "might" stand a chance with that method I admit cstanleytech Jan 2015 #127

not fantastic :( PatrynXX Dec 2014 #2

People's lives and careers have been destroyed over this BS. inanna Dec 2014 #3

How so? ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #6

There have been many cases where computers/phones have been HACKED inanna Dec 2014 #7

How much jail time should have been served by the person who received Anthony Weiner's photographs? jberryhill Dec 2014 #9

You'll have to forgive me but I don't know who Anthony Weiner is... inanna Dec 2014 #12

Okay jberryhill Dec 2014 #18

Presumably the woman would share the photos with a court of law. geek tragedy Dec 2014 #26

Was Weiner stalking that person? I thought they were having an affair. Ash_F Dec 2014 #101

weiner sent his pictures out seabeyond Dec 2014 #14

of his weiner Skittles Dec 2014 #29

wiener himself put the pics of him out there JI7 Dec 2014 #37

No jberryhill Dec 2014 #41

Then go after the thief or hacker, not your ex-. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #11

so consent is insignificant to you? seabeyond Dec 2014 #15

They gave consent when they sent their photos to someone else. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #17

so it is the victims fault? shouldnt have trusted that hubby or bf? he couldnt help himself? seabeyond Dec 2014 #20

It is, ultimately, the sender's fault. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #21

and now, becuase of this law, if a person is "gifted" they better say thank you and hold seabeyond Dec 2014 #22

+++++ inanna Dec 2014 #23

I doubt anyone will ever be prosecuted. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #25

calif passed the law at least a yr ago and have used it at least twice for prosecution. seabeyond Dec 2014 #33

That's California. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #35

lol seabeyond Dec 2014 #36

I'm glad you find that amusing. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #38

you are all up in arms freedom of speech you yell. another state has the laws on book, seabeyond Dec 2014 #39

Other states don't have Illinois' constitution, now does they? ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #40

The theory isn't incorrect JonLP24 Dec 2014 #42

Thanks for your thoughts. inanna Dec 2014 #43

point is, he is throwing out a guess as fact. i have a state that has the law and has seabeyond Dec 2014 #48

California won't be the standard used JonLP24 Dec 2014 #49

No but it is encouraging. inanna Dec 2014 #50

yes. i understand that. and my point is the poster was adamant it would be thrown out. seabeyond Dec 2014 #58

restrictions on 'property' are part of living in any free society geek tragedy Dec 2014 #28

"do not publish without consent" is the general rule-- wrong! ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #31

you are massively and completely incorrect on this. geek tragedy Dec 2014 #46

Wow, haven't seen a victim-blaming statement that straightforward here in awhile. (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #62

"a victim-blaming statement that straightforward" ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #85

Legally, that is 100% wrong. You clearly don't understand how copyright works. Xithras Jan 2015 #108

Legally, it is you who is wrong. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #111

You really should read the law. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Xithras Jan 2015 #112

You should really learn how to do legal research, rather than copy and paste. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #114

Here is a question for you. cstanleytech Jan 2015 #128

They most certainly did NOT give consent for their image to be used PUBLICALY. KittyWampus Jan 2015 #119

Yes they did. ColesCountyDem Jan 2015 #121

And when this happens with spy cameras? inanna Dec 2014 #16

That's never been legal. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #19

Already illegal. The problem here though is this law is meant to curb people posting photos and cstanleytech Dec 2014 #56

Legal or illegal - why is this a problem for you? inanna Dec 2014 #63

The problem the videos are legal and they are in essence trying to take away your rights to do with cstanleytech Dec 2014 #68

Well...I guess one can always hope and pray.... inanna Dec 2014 #70

There are already laws on the books to deal with some of that like you can sue someone cstanleytech Dec 2014 #72

Yeah. But this is a new law that will totally inanna Dec 2014 #73

Problem is though that I suspect the courts might not agree with that cstanleytech Dec 2014 #75

I don't get it Skittles Dec 2014 #30

I've never understood it, either. n/t ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #32

For the same reason that people who can see someone dressed JimDandy Dec 2014 #47

If you don't want your naked photos..... LovingA2andMI Dec 2014 #44

It's Chattel Property Law is Chattel Property Law Underground. n/t ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #45

Does that level of naivete come naturally, or do you need to train for it? (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2014 #55

You obviously understand nothing about chattel law. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #84

You send an intimate pix that is INTENDED for private use, then recipient using for PUBLIC use KittyWampus Jan 2015 #118

Sorry, but free speech zealots need to grasp that free speech also involves consent when it comes KittyWampus Jan 2015 #117

I'm sure it's a good law (1-3 years seems high), but I can't help think that those who will C Moon Dec 2014 #8

good. more and more states will do this. hasnt calif passed this law? already prosecuted a seabeyond Dec 2014 #10

Well, I just found this via Google: inanna Dec 2014 #27

yes. i have read about two prosecutions in calif, one just recently. all states will seabeyond Dec 2014 #34

Whatever. bluestateguy Dec 2014 #51

For eveyone not in IL, file a standard DMCA takedown request. ManiacJoe Dec 2014 #52

What if they just gave a broad consent of "yes you can film me having sex with you"? cstanleytech Dec 2014 #80

Interesting. If thats true (and I am not calling you a liar) then that could be one way to legally cstanleytech Dec 2014 #86

That is how most videos get removed from the web. ManiacJoe Dec 2014 #88

ummmm jberryhill Dec 2014 #99

People who want "vengeance" this badly do not need porn sites. inanna Dec 2014 #65

A good law. nilesobek Dec 2014 #87

Very sorry to hear that. inanna Dec 2014 #89

ILCU opposes 'revenge porn' bill. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #100

Agree about the broad part JonLP24 Dec 2014 #102

It's a very flawed piece of legislation. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #103

More from Huffington Post: inanna Dec 2014 #104

Great law! Politicub Jan 2015 #105

Yes. That would be ideal. n/t inanna Jan 2015 #110

Fantastic law. jdenver_2624 Jan 2015 #106

State law cannot supercede federal law. It will be struck down very quickly. Xithras Jan 2015 #107

Looking at some cats or dogs or pigs or bulls could be porn to some people JDDavis Jan 2015 #120